↓ Skip to main content

The contribution from psychological, social, and organizational work factors to risk of disability retirement: a systematic review with meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The contribution from psychological, social, and organizational work factors to risk of disability retirement: a systematic review with meta-analyses
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4059-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stein Knardahl, Håkon A. Johannessen, Tom Sterud, Mikko Härmä, Reiner Rugulies, Jorma Seitsamo, Vilhelm Borg

Abstract

Previous studies indicate that psychological, social, and organizational factors at work contribute to health, motivation, absence from work, and functional ability. The objective of the study was to assess the current state of knowledge of the contribution of psychological, social, and organizational factors to disability retirement by a systematic review and meta-analyses. Data sources: A systematic literature search for studies of retirement due to disability in Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO was performed. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand-searched for additional studies. Internal validity was assessed independently by two referees with a detailed checklist for sources of bias. Conclusions were drawn based on studies with acceptable quality. We calculated combined effect estimates by means of averaged associations (Risk ratios) across samples, weighting observed associations by the study's sample size. Thirty-nine studies of accepted quality were found, 37 of which from the Nordic countries. There was moderate evidence for the role of low control (supported by weighted average RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.21-1.61) and moderate evidence for the combination of high demands and low control (although weighted average was RR = 1.45; 95% CI = 0.96-2.19) as predictors of disability retirement. There were no major systematic differences in findings between the highest rated and the lowest rated studies that passed the criterion for adequate quality. There was limited evidence for downsizing, organizational change, lack of employee development and supplementary training, repetitive work tasks, effort-reward imbalance to increase risk of disability pension. Very limited evidence was found for job demands, evening or night work, and low social support from ones superior. Psychological and organizational factors at work contribute to disability retirement with the most robust evidence for the role of work control. We recommend the measurement of specific exposure factors in future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 23%
Psychology 16 15%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 28 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,493,469
of 18,716,128 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,876
of 12,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,322
of 288,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,716,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.